Tube Amps / Music Electronics
|For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum.||The sunn still shines online!|
|previous: Dave B. Gil,
|5/23/2000 4:52 PM|
|Gil Ayan||Re: Dumbleator and "Send in the Clones!"|
To me it is... but it's your amp we're talking about here, so go about it the way you think is best! In the words of someone (Dave Funk?), "hear everyone out, but don't listen to anybody!"
Well, the simplest design is the amp without any added stuff in it. And it is already busy that way, have a look at one of my amps, and imagine another preamp tube, another chunk of circuitry and a few more caps on the power supply, a couple more jacks, switches and pots:
Less parts outside, meaning more inside.
Agreed, it is a simple loop, and many amps already have them in them; there is no mojo at all. Furthermore, the Dumbleator could be easily improved by macing is a series/parallel loop, which it's not.
When Dumble started building amps, FX loops didn't exist, so I hardly think the Dumbleator was an afterthought. While Boogies sported the same signal interrupt FX loops in their early amps, they started putting a more sophisticated loop in their amps in 1978 with the Mark IIB. It took them about 15 years to get a decent FX loop working in their amps (and this is the post Mark era, all Marks have marginal FX loops).
On the opposite end of the spectrum, the Overdrive Special's architecture seems to have remained the very same for about 30 years now. The man seems to have always kept his designs simple... and like Trainwreck, most Dr. Z amps, Victoria Amps, Top Hat, and a few others, he chose to leave the amp alone.
It won't turn out crappy, I am sure -- and you would have nothing to apologize for to anyone.
You're making a judgement right there... If I told you that punching a hole for an extra tube and putting one there would change the sound of the amp you'd probably think I'm a looney tune, right? So I am not gong to say that, but to be honest with you, it is the truth.